- - Thursday, July 7, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

While abortion supporters are busy rejoicing in the Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, many Second Amendment supporters are having a celebration of their very own after reading the majority opinion.

In this opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the exact argument that gun rights advocates have been using for years, more laws do not equal less crime.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Breyer attempted to separate the horrific crimes of abortionists like Kermit Gosnell from the argument being made by Texas abortion regulation supporters.

House Bill 2, which was at issue in this case, contained several provisions pertaining to abortions, including the requirement that doctors who provide abortion services obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and that abortion facilities meet specifications to become ambulatory surgery centers under existing Texas Code.

Justice Breyer wrote off these requirements designed to safeguard the health and safety of Texas women as being unnecessary.

“Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations,” Justice Breyer explained.

Essentially, what he is saying here is that more laws will not deter lawbreakers from committing crimes.

Is this not the exact same argument that the NRA and Second Amendment supporters have been making for years?

The liberal left cannot play both sides.

If they are going to use this reasoning to declare abortion regulations unconstitutional, they should stop denying its validity when raised to support the Second Amendment right of U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms.

One can only help that as gun control cases make their way to the Supreme Court that it will be difficult for these justices to distance themselves from the reasoning used in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

However, as we have seen in recent years, the law doesn’t always apply to everyone, and the left has a way of unapologetically picking and choosing reasoning that is politically expedient.

• Madison Gesiotto is a staff editor for the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. The author’s views are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide